- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Negative carry over = me won’t promote you!
All those other factors mean nothing, I don’t know any reputable program that has negative carry over. Stop sugar coating this, this is a horrible policy.
I also do not convert at all with this group but I hope things are going to chage for the better at Mainstreet
I liked the Mainstreet program but I removed them as Im way negative.. Neg carry and grouping in suicide…
@mainstreet 185777 wrote:
Hi Gamtrak,
Yes we do have that negative carryover just like most other brands out there. But surely a flat 40% of net gaming is a good bet! I have many, many affiliates with large player pools that in the event that one of their players does win, it doesnt affect their overall earnings month after month. Ups and downs, its part of the game.
Also of note is that we are consistantly rated by CAP as the top 3 fastest payouts to affiliates each month. We generally have all paid by the 1st 2nnd or 3rd of the following month.
Regards,
Jason
Sorry Jason but I have to point out that the vast majority of programs we and most other webmaster here promote do not have negative carry over.
negative carry over is just another way to “steal” from affiliates.
@eclipse 185856 wrote:
negative carry over is just another way to “steal” from affiliates.
Nice reach but I think we would all agree that that statement is a bit extreme and completely false. Next you’ll likly say paying you 40% is stealing.
Rest assured I hear everyones concerns in the matter, but lets keep them realistic.
Regards,
JasonBTW eclipse twice now I have gone to your site http://www.gambleruler.com (once a few weekes ago and once just today) and a virus was detected by Windows Live OneCare.
exploit:Win32/pdfjsc.G
May want to check this out.
Jason
I don’t see negative carryover as “stealing”. In fact strictly speaking to provide balance to both parties, earnings should be aggregated over the lifetime of a player (average 5/6 months). This is effectively what negative carryover does, but because it doesn’t work on a player-by-player basis and one winner can affect earnings from other players, despite ensuring a monthly dividend to affiliates, it’s too risky a proposition. And even if it was on a player by player basis, no affiliate would wait that long to receive their earnings. So the most accurate method is unworkable, hence why we have this compromise.
Like any business, an affiliate needs to spread their risk. Given all things are equal, it makes no sense to give priority to a casino with negative carryover when you can push one that doesn’t and reduce the financial risk substantially. So I don’t go down that road unless the casino a) allows me to run multiple affiliate accounts and spread the players around (normally one account per website in my case) and b) will agree to wipe out big hits if they aren’t cleared by the end of the following month. This goes some way to redressing the balance, although it’s still not as attractive as no neg.
On a similar note but a little off-topic, affiliates should take the “spread the risk” philosphy and apply it to all casinos they promote. Sticking with one or two casinos at the top of the page ad infinitum because you “always do well there” is setting yourself up for trouble down the line. Better to spread the players around different casinos at different groups. Short term losses should mean long term gains. It’s better to have 50 casinos making $1,000 than 5 casinos making $10,000 if you’re here for the long term – you’ll weather the storms far easier
@Simmo! 185873 wrote:
I don’t see negative carryover as “stealing”. In fact strictly speaking to provide balance to both parties, earnings should be aggregated over the lifetime of a player (average 5/6 months). This is effectively what negative carryover does, but because it doesn’t work on a player-by-player basis and one winner can affect earnings from other players, despite ensuring a monthly dividend to affiliates, it’s too risky a proposition. And even if it was on a player by player basis, no affiliate would wait that long to receive their earnings. So the most accurate method is unworkable, hence why we have this compromise.
Like any business, an affiliate needs to spread their risk. Given all things are equal, it makes no sense to give priority to a casino with negative carryover when you can push one that doesn’t and reduce the financial risk substantially. So I don’t go down that road unless the casino a) allows me to run multiple affiliate accounts and spread the players around (normally one account per website in my case) and b) will agree to wipe out big hits if they aren’t cleared by the end of the following month. This goes some way to redressing the balance, although it’s still not as attractive as no neg.
On a similar note but a little off-topic, affiliates should take the “spread the risk” philosphy and apply it to all casinos they promote. Sticking with one or two casinos at the top of the page ad infinitum because you “always do well there” is setting yourself up for trouble down the line. Better to spread the players around different casinos at different groups. Short term losses should mean long term gains. It’s better to have 50 casinos making $1,000 than 5 casinos making $10,000 if you’re here for the long term – you’ll weather the storms far easier
I don’t see negative carryover as stealing either but why pick a group with negative
carryover when you can get other casinos running same software who don’t?Also most of these casinos with negatives also beat down our incomes with manager credits.Nice reach but I think we would all agree that that statement is a bit extreme and completely false. Next you’ll likly say paying you 40% is stealing.
Rest assured I hear everyones concerns in the matter, but lets keep them realistic.
Not so much as stealing but a bit unrealistic in these times, most programs cannot afford to pay that to affiliates after the over head cost etc, once the software provider gets their cut there is not much cash left for the marketing budget So there are things that are done to cut those cost. Anyone in the biz long enough knows this is a fact, so with that said if I could make say 30 to 35 % and not have player comps and bonuses come out of my pocket I would love that!
Not a big fan of the neg thing either guys but in these times we may have to find a way to deal with it or adjust our sites so we don’t have to work with programs that use the neg roll over.
@casinobonusguy 185875 wrote:
anyone other than Rome casino have top game software?
Yes — 7Spins Casino. (regular link) (affiliate link)
>> top game software
also, what is their software home page ?
I am really hopeful with the new Wizard Gaming, the guys there are on the ball with any concerns I have since I started promoting them, the response time on emails is fast and impressive so if you haven’t looked into them yet give them a glance.
@Simmo! 185873 wrote:
It’s better to have 50 casinos making $1,000 than 5 casinos making $10,000 if you’re here for the long term – you’ll weather the storms far easier
Definitely!!!!!
Negative carryover is usually a prescription for a short term relationship. If it doesn’t clear up within a month, I am generally outta there. I need the income generated by my players.
Ok, so for US facing we have Vegas Tech, Rival, RTG, Wizard and Top.
